@buttercup said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Well, shitballs.
Thrax and any non-tainted future it had just went to hell and that is entirely a shame.
Max = Custodius = Flee
I was loving the game, too.
My experience with the situation so far gives me complete faith that staff will handle any problems very promptly and appropriately. Idk about other games, but on Arx I do not believe that he will be an issue.
@Kanye-Qwest said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
That said, I'm interested in opinions. If you play, or even aren't playing, what types of GM events do you crave the most? Small, intimate adventures? Big battles? Grand displays? Just crowdsourcing for ideas, here. Shamelessly.
I think ideally you should aim for plot lines hard to hog by a few select players - that's basically your worst case scenario. For example a story which must be handled and resolved by nobleborn commits too much of its threads behind closed doors, making it difficult for others to become engaged.
On the other hand it all depends on how an event is structured from scratch. Again as an example, a war effort could in theory be very limiting in that it could be offered primarily for combatants to show off their stuff in; however when done right (well... 'right') it can involve spies, diplomats, craftsmen as well as military leaders and actual troops - plus their significant others, of course. All those are very successful literature tropes you could throw at your players.
Basically with that caveat the only type I'd avoid from the ones you mentioned above is small intimate adventures; not because they aren't great or can't advance character growth, since of course they can, but because they scale so poorly - so you're committing staff resources but can only pander the goodies to so a relatively small number of players. Those should ideally be ran by players, leaving you guys to primarily run the larger picture stuff unless of course you're itching to do something different.
@Kanye-Qwest Selfishly, I'd love myself some grand battles. But that's because my character is geared towards them. Its always great to have your character be able to do the things you've imagined they're supposed to be doing. Intimate adventures are great, too, but also perfect for crowd-sourcing out to player storytellers, if they have the tools necessary to run them. Especially if they're given plot clues to work into them, so attendance feels like it has some weight rather than being ephemeral.
All of the above? Though during big, climatic battles I've always been fond of the smaller, elite "strike force" carrying out a specialized task or spearhead with a large scale conflict as the background. Whether that background is predetermined, rolled for and summarized, or whatever. This may be a result of playing on a number of games that have attempted large, epic battle scenes and they ultimately end up either excessively confusing, poorly executed, or different imaginations paint different pictures. This does not mean that they are not a load of fun or exciting, just that in my opinion there are a number of pitfalls with gigantic battle plots as the focus.
See The Reach and the End of the World plot, where some were safely sipping wine and giving out handjobs behind the safety of their doors, while others were treating it like an episode of The Walking Dead mated with a Mad Max flick; and everything in between.
Even social plots are enjoyable for me. I would say that the only sort of plot I do not regularly invest myself in are mystery plots. More often than not, because of the differing imaginations coupled with poor expression, they quickly shift from Mystery Plots to Confusion Plots.
I'm sure I should mention while I have been considering checking out Arx, I do not play there. So my thoughts on plot-stuff doesn't carry the same weight as one of your playerbase.
This is just personal, but ... I prefer plots smaller and immediate in focus and scope. That is because, in my experience, if you go for something big and grand, the IC power holders tend to snatch it up and start dominating it. Maybe, they might give some task to a lower status PC but they'll favor IC friends and allies, making it hard for new players to break into plot. Where, if you start a plot around a small group of non-powerful PCs, then you can make sure that you're cycling through the different orgs and PCs with plot.
I think the spreadsheet for coordinating plots and making sure that there are different things happening on grid is a great idea.
@lordbelh said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Kanye-Qwest Selfishly, I'd love myself some grand battles. But that's because my character is geared towards them. Its always great to have your character be able to do the things you've imagined they're supposed to be doing. Intimate adventures are great, too, but also perfect for crowd-sourcing out to player storytellers, if they have the tools necessary to run them. Especially if they're given plot clues to work into them, so attendance feels like it has some weight rather than being ephemeral.
Highlighted by me. @lordbelh's character may be suited for battle, but I think almost anyone would be happy to make use of the skills and focus they've decided on for their characters.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was looking for! Maybe I'll just post in game and request people send me ideas of what they think their character should be doing/be good at. My spreadsheet idea grows, but if we're handing out GMing in a balanced manner, we'll want people to enjoy what they get.
@Lisse24 I do like that investigation you can have active are limited. It was one of the things I was vocal about initially, in that it forces you to delegate issues down the command chain. One character just can't investigate and discover every damn clue out there, and so solve every problem.
Only being able to resolve one story issue at a time would also play into that. Basically anything that forces people in power to delegate is a good thing, in my experience.
At this point in the game the people who can shine are the ones who can dig into the lore of the world, and the ones who can be social. That leaves the explorers and the soldier types somewhat threading water for the time being. I'm sure other concepts, too.
But I do know that the whole dynamic exploration ideas is going to offer something to both sorts.
Of big battles, the important thing is that people feel they can in some way contribute. What it gives you isn't just the battles, though, its all the roleplay around where you can finally explore those sides of your character. Rather than taverning it up.
In this they're no different than other GM events, in that they provide so much extra opportunity to shake things up in your regular scenes.
our vague idea for big battles is very much to split things up into teams..or rooms..something. So that the battle is narrated and decided by a combined roll or something, but people get 'moments' and 'challenges' where they can use their skills to try and win a glorious moment. Something like that.
I'd like some intrigue events, honestly. Things where you can actively USE information to make changes in the world through the right word in the right ear, through stirring up (or calming down) the common masses, through creating the right sorts of deals that have measurable effects in the world. Diplomatic events, etc. Not tasks, but things that actually use skills.
But, full disclosure, that's totally because my character is sitting on a handful of social skills and stats that are largely useless with PCs, so it'd be nice to have something they're good for.
Other than that, my preference is always for small group things, where PCs have a chance to interact, grow, change, and make a measurable difference on the world in the bargain. A big war/battle type event would be fun, but it'd be really nice to see that be a multiscale thing, where the commanders are playing more of a chess game with living pieces, and the pieces are important PC squads who are either fighting battles, or sneaking behind enemy lines for scouting/espionage/assassination/etc, where they're very active but don't have any opportunity to see the big picture that the commanders have.
EDIT: If you go with something like the above, though, you'll need to spread the GMing out, because there's simply not enough of you guys to do something like this. I'd suggest staggered squads - the first wave, y'all run the squad-based plots as a model for what these should look like, etc. Make the first squads also be people who are willing to GM a squad after them, and use it as sort of a training field, then let those players GM for the next group of squads, with staff oversight and aid. Assess afterwards using logs/asking players what needs to be tweaked/clarified, etc, then move into the next with the improvements made. Since the game's in beta, this is a great time to do something that's explicitly test/training, since you can always roll it back if everything goes to Hell.
I recommend looking at something like Burning Empires for some ideas on how to handle 'Big Picture' events where everyone has an excuse to get involved using a myriad of different skills and make a real difference, along with preventing whomever has the biggest dice from just dominating each instance.
So even if you are dealing with a straight forward battle it would not be two people rolling Charisma+Command and Intelligence+War vs each other or whatever, come up with a number of different maneuvers which use different skills and different purposes along with combat being about winning via strategic disposition points rather than simulating 3000 people sticking swords into 3000 other people. I mention Burning Empires because the system is really abstract but infinitely scale-able, it can work for a skirmish between a few dozen raiders or for a gigantic confrontation and battles do not have to involve much direct combat - you could win entirely through out maneuvering the enemy and achieving your objectives without fighting, or win whilst suffering horrible casualties but end up holding the field or vice versa.
So you might find that the enemy right flank are charging you and decide to try to lure them into a trap using a different set of skills (deception or subterfuge or whatever), perhaps one character has high Heraldry and can thus assist through recognizing the lords leading the attack and knowing about their personalities and tendencies giving a bonus in the process. Hell, maybe the person with high Sewing and Heraldry could quickly knock up fake banners by realizing that a quick modification makes your coat of arms look like the one the enemy are expecting to come as reinforcements, so that when you attack their flank they believe they have been betrayed and fleet? Let people be creative.
@Sunny I am really, really conflicted about what to do re: Max. I hate the idea of being "tainted" by involvement with the character, but his current situation provides a perfect plot opportunity for me to push one of my girl's agendas. I'm not sure where it all evens out or whether it's worth taking the risk. Advice?
I'd like an opportunity to develop more regarding my character's demesne. What it produces in terms of exports and common industries, and also get a clear idea of the type of IC resources it needs, which gives me an idea of who to approach to strike up commerce with. Easier access to being able to review my character's military assets (it seems like only staff can access them right now). Also, a way to reflect popularity and social standing as effected by the NPC populace, which as commoners might not always be in alignment with the ruling nobles, who make up the majority of the game population.
"If you stand for nothing Burr, what will you fall for?"
-- Hamilton: An American Musical
@Cupcake
Unsolicited but firm advice: do what you would do IC, and let us worry if anything weird crops up OOC. There is no reason to be borrowing trouble when there is none. I repeat, we aren't going to let anyone be a creeper, a cheater, or an OOC bully. Period. There is no player that I have ever seen or heard of that is going to be allowed to 'kill' Arx. I mean, I guess if a literal Moriarty with incredible network skills decided to take us down we'd be fucked, but beyond that?
Let me worry about player behavior. Trust me, I am way meaner than any of these hobby Big Bads.
Take the risk. Pay attention. If at any point you become uncomfortable or uncertain about the appropriateness of his behavior, let Hellfrog know immediately. Do not, under any circumstances, let anything iffy slide. Don't hold it against him or develop a grudge, don't change your own appropriate behavior, just deal with it promptly and efficiently. If he crosses lines, he will be corrected, and if he cannot be corrected and does not learn that inappropriate behavior will not fly (I do believe that he will learn what he can get away with, if nothing else, and will stay within the boundaries of appropriate behavior) I am positive that staff will take the appropriate, reasonable actions to remedy the situation. My own situation was resolved immediately, and his friendliness and willingness to work with me did not change.
I know that "trust staff" is hard for a lot of people with gaming PTSD, but at every turn I have watched these staffers deal well with masses of players who all have some level of gaming PTSD (including me). I don't really know Custodius aside from reading reputational screeds on MSB et al, but I feel pretty good backing up KQ here.
I second @saosmash. I have full faith in staff there, and I am saying that even with having been burned so fucking badly recently elsewhere. These guys have their shit together, and I have zero reservations.
@saosmash said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I know that "trust staff" is hard for a lot of people with gaming PTSD, but at every turn I have watched these staffers deal well with masses of players who all have some level of gaming PTSD (including me).
You can't trust someone until you see how they act, or until someone who knows you tells you that they're trustworthy. Otherwise that trust is a gift, and no game staff should squander that yet they do, time and again. So far @Apos has been reacting 100% professional about his game, and that falls into the "show don't tell" category of earning it. Really, he's the only reason I'm giving this game a try at all.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
In regards to the Max thing, here are my thoughts (and they are just thoughts not right or wrong):
He's not going to ruin Thrax or the game. He's a count. If he really starts messing stuff up someone higher can just be like, yeah well no. I mean it's not like that happened to Tyde or anything. So there are already so many checks and balances. I would be more worried if he played an actual last name Thrax player.
When it comes to how to play with him. There are a few ways. Just play IC that Max is how you want to go about it. Then just be aware on an OOC level. I wouldn't engage him in OOC conversation about plots or goals. Or just find another person. He doesn't have the cornerstone of anything.
@Cupcake said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Sunny I am really, really conflicted about what to do re: Max. I hate the idea of being "tainted" by involvement with the character, but his current situation provides a perfect plot opportunity for me to push one of my girl's agendas. I'm not sure where it all evens out or whether it's worth taking the risk. Advice?
Equally as unsolicited as others' but I advise against further involvement. Even 100% reliable staff can only act after the fact, not before, so it depends on whether you think the player in question will eventually show how he got this bad reputation or if you believe he'll be able to restrain himself.
Should the former happen though you stand only to lose from any ongoing association and all anyone can do is limit your losses, which by definition are at their smallest right now.
On the plus side, Custodius is hilariously terrible at politics so if anyone wants to act -against- him IC then it should be easy enough. Just play a female character then get him to agree to terrible shit that is absolutely not in his interests whilst letting him think that he is persuading you how awesome he is.
our vague idea for big battles is very much to split things up into teams..or rooms..something. So that the battle is narrated and decided by a combined roll or something, but people get 'moments' and 'challenges' where they can use their skills to try and win a glorious moment. Something like that.
